50mm 1.4G or D

This may be a redundant topic but I am new on this site.

Right now I have a Nikon D90 with a Nikkor 16-85mm, a Nikkor 35mm 1.8G and a Nikkor 50mm 1.4D.

I was wondering if the 50mm 1.4G is worth the upgrade from the D. i'm pretty happy with the 1.4D because it is an amazing lens, but the focusing is too loud and sounds like its struggling when pointed downwards at an angle.

Should I trade or sell my 50 1.4D and get the G?

If so, how much trade-in credit would I get for it?

I have a 50/1.4G and it's a fine lens but if I had it do over again, I would have applied the money towards a 24-70/2.8.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ralphandjenny/
Nikon D Ninety

ralphdaily said:

I have a 50/1.4G and it's a fine lens but if I had it do over again, I would have applied the money towards a 24-70/2.8.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ralphandjenny/
Nikon D Ninety

Click to expand...

I was thinking that too. I tried out the 17-55 2.8 and fell in love. But its too much money. I was also thinking of getting the Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM but I don't know. I had an 18-200 Sigma and it was absolutely terrible, then I traded it in and got the tamron 17-50 2.8 BIM and it was focusing too slow, back focusing and had flimsy build quality so I returned it and got the 16-85.

My purpose was to have an everyday walk around lens. I'm actually very very very happy with the 16-85.

I love my 35 1.8 and 50 1.4D so I was just wondering if it was worth it to get the G and sell the D. What other lenses do you have?

ragecat said:

Should I trade or sell my 50 1.4D and get the G?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. The only real difference is that the G-type is slightly better wide open and has (just slightly) better bokeh. Since the error from shooting at f/1.4 is vastly more due to skill than equipment, it's not a meaningful enough distinction. After swapping and trading, you'll be paying the amount for a D-type for practically no real world difference. The G-type only makes sense if you didn't have a 50 to begin with.

ragecat said:

Should I trade or sell my 50 1.4D and get the G?

Click to expand...

YMMV, but IMHO, it is not worth it.
http://dpanswers.com/content/lens_show.php?id=112&pid=NI5014GAF
--
– gisle [ See profile/plan for equipment list ]

I love my 50 1.4 D. I wouldn't trade it for the world.
--
Prentis
http://prentis.smugmug.com

The only AF 50 that would make a difference would possibly be the sigma 50 1.4 HSM which is build like a tank and overall about almost twice the size and price of the Nikkors. They all perform well when stopped down a little, even the little 50 1.8D is great when not wide open.

If you are suspecting mechanical problems, your 50 1.4D might still under warranty and if not, a relatively simple prime is less costly to repair.
--
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

this is from the conclusion of the review of the 50mm f/1.4G here on Dpreview

"The AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.4G was, at its introduction, hailed by Nikon as 'redefining the standard lens concept'. It turns out that in many ways that was no idle boast - in almost all respects the lens is clearly improved over its predecessor, the AF-Nikkor 50mm F1.4D. It's sharper wide open , and provides much more even performance across the frame (especially on FX), with notably better corner sharpness at large and intermediate apertures . Both barrel distortion and vignetting are also lower , and the rendition of out-of-focus backgrounds is improved due to the circular aperture . The typical foibles of this type of fast prime - blue color-blur from residual spherical aberration, and color fringing in out-of-focus regions due to longitudinal chromatic aberration - are present, but not especially intrusive, and appear reduced compared to the older lens. As usual, they are also only visible at large apertures. The lens is somewhat susceptible to flare when shooting into the light, but this is far from unusual with fast primes. Overall in terms of optics, the 50mm F1.4G is sufficiently better than its predecessor (especially at large apertures) to make upgrading well worth considering ."

this is from Thom Hogans review

" The older 50mm f/1.4D is no longer relevant . While I haven't exactly heaped praise on the optical quality of the new AF-S version, it still is enough better--especially if you're a max or near max aperture shooter--that I think it's now out of the running."

I have owned 2 copies of the 50mm f/1.4D and I now own the 50mm f/1.4G I can tell you the new lens is optically better in every way.

--
Primary kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Backup kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm, f/1.8. 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

edwardaneal wrote:

the 50mm F1.4G is sufficiently better than its predecessor (especially at large apertures) to make upgrading well worth considering ."

Though they hit almost all of the right points (excet the distortion), it's conclusions like that tend to make people question our hosts from time to time.

edwardaneal said:

this is from Thom Hogans review

" The older 50mm f/1.4D is no longer relevant . While I haven't exactly heaped praise on the optical quality of the new AF-S version, it still is enough better--especially if you're a max or near max aperture shooter--that I think it's now out of the running."

I have owned 2 copies of the 50mm f/1.4D and I now own the 50mm f/1.4G I can tell you the new lens is optically better in every way.

Click to expand...

Yes, but is it worth the price if you have the lens as the OP asked? Thom also prefaced his comment with "...though it may surprise you...", indicating that he knew that his conclusion would be surprising and contentious.

What's the real world cost for a little bit extra performance? What else could you have done with that money?

I also have the 50mm 1.4D but I would not trade it for a 50mm 1.4G. If I were to consider upgrading this lens I would instead opt for the Sigma 50mm 1.4.

You would get a better return on your current 50mm 1.4D if you sold it privately, stores need to make a profit so offer considerably less than the market value.

Happy shooting, Lizzie

whats the cost? Thats an interesting question, Some of us pay a great deal for very small amounts of improvement - look at the price difference between the 85mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.4

personally I dont think $450 is out of line for a lens that performs as well as the 50mm f/1.4G

have you ever compared the 50mm f/1.4 G's mtf numbers at equal apertures to some of Nikons other options? take a look at this chart and you will see the 50mm f/1.4G has some pretty impressive numbers especially at the edges where it easily betters the other lenses in the chart. Some people only care about center sharpness, and thats okay, but for even sharpness across the frame the 50mm f/1.4G rocks



and all of the other lenses in this chart will cost you more than the 50mm f/1.4G

stuntmonkey said:

What's the real world cost for a little bit extra performance? What else could you have done with that money?

Click to expand...

--
Primary kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Backup kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm, f/1.8. 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

edwardaneal said:

whats the cost? Thats an interesting question, Some of us pay a great deal for very small amounts of improvement - look at the price difference between the 85mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.4

Click to expand...

Close, not not quite the comparison. The 85 f/1.4 does something the f/1.8 can't, get better bokeh. However, if there is a new G-type 85f/1.4 coming, I don't see why I would go for it if the improvement would only be as good as between the 50's. VR would completely change my mind, but not a mild increase in corner sharpness wide open.

It's good to pay for extra functionality, not just better. That's why we admonish people to get better glass, not upgrade bodies. That's my feeling anyway.

yes the 85mm f/1.4 is better than the f/1.8 - but the 50mm f/1.4G also has better bokeh than the 50mm f/1.4d - much better in fact - I know I have owned both.

It is also better in every other optical measurement as the review here states - less distortion, sharper, less ca,

If you dont want to acknowledge the superiority of the new 50 over the old that is fine, but I can tell you having owned 2 of the "d" and now the "g" the differences are substantial.

stuntmonkey said:

edwardaneal said:

whats the cost? Thats an interesting question, Some of us pay a great deal for very small amounts of improvement - look at the price difference between the 85mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.4

Click to expand...

Close, not not quite the comparison. The 85 f/1.4 does something the f/1.8 can't, get better bokeh. However, if there is a new G-type 85f/1.4 coming, I don't see why I would go for it if the improvement would only be as good as between the 50's. VR would completely change my mind, but not a mild increase in corner sharpness wide open.

It's good to pay for extra functionality, not just better. That's why we admonish people to get better glass, not upgrade bodies. That's my feeling anyway.

Click to expand...

--
Primary kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Backup kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm, f/1.8. 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

If you have a D90 why would you even consider the more expensive 50 1.4G lens? Shouldn't you automatically get the cheaper D lens, cos you paid for your focus motor? At least that is the reason everyone here gives for why the focus motor is so important...

because the new 50mm f/1.4G is a better lens optically and the 9 rounded aperture blades produce nicer results than the 7 standard blades of the 50mm f/1.4D

with the 50mm f/1.4D point light sources in the out of focus areas are little heptagons with 7 flat sides

Nikon 50mm f/1.4G @ f/1.6 - the "D" cant do this



Nikon 50mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4 - first test shot straight from D200



and its sharper wide open - f/1.4, natural light 100% crop straight from camera



sure you dont need AFS with a D90, but you might want better bokeh and better performance at f/1.4

greenjelly said:

If you have a D90 why would you even consider the more expensive 50 1.4G lens? Shouldn't you automatically get the cheaper D lens, cos you paid for your focus motor? At least that is the reason everyone here gives for why the focus motor is so important...

Click to expand...

--
Primary kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Backup kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8, 85mm, f/1.8. 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

edwardaneal said:

If you dont want to acknowledge the superiority of the new 50 over the old that is fine, but I can tell you having owned 2 of the "d" and now the "g" the differences are substantial.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not the OP's question, is it? It comes back to, is the price difference it worth it or not? That is obviously a very personal question, but I've always been one to advocate prudent money spending.

And for the mild increase in out of focus area quality...if one were to really be doing forground-background isolation, it would be preferalbe to be doing it at longer focal lengths, with one of the 85's or a 70-200 f/2.8. 50mm almost approximates 85mm on FX, but not quite.